W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > September 2007

Re: towards consensus on fixup, part 1

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:16:29 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bir6nh4uq.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> Do you think it's useful or necessary to do this by appealing to the
> Infoset terminology explicitly, or is this just a shorthand for us?
> We haven't been making a lot of explicit reference to infoset items in
> our spec and to the extent that we can make the section we're now
> talking about consistent with the rest of the spec, I think that would
> be a good thing.

I don't know how else to be as explicit as I think we now need to be.
How else could we do this?  We're not saying it _is_ an infoset (after
all, the Infoset REC doesn't define such a thing), we're just being
precise about aspects of the XML document we're dealing with by using
a terminology which has been carefully defined for precisely that

Note that my language included expressions such as "information
. . . corresponding to the infoset properties [...]..." to try to
indicate that our relationship with the Infoset REC was an arms-length,
terminological one, and _not_ implicitly assuming a data model
isomorphic to 'the infoset'.

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 21:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC